Background
Diego Raoul Goding sought appellate review of three orders arising from two related Harris County proceedings. In appeal number 01-26-00062-CV, he challenged a December 11, 2025 final judgment and a January 9, 2026 post-judgment temporary order in trial court cause number 2019-20442.
In appeal number 01-26-00067-CV, Goding challenged an order granting a petition for writ of habeas corpus in related trial court cause number 2019-20442A. The trial court had granted Goding a new trial on December 19, 2025, and memorialized that ruling in a January 28, 2026 written order that expressly set aside the December 11 final judgment while leaving the January 9 temporary orders in effect.
The Court’s Holding
The First Court of Appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction over all three challenged orders. Because the new-trial order vacated the December 11 final judgment, that judgment was no longer appealable. The January 9 temporary order was interlocutory and not subject to appeal.
The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal from the order granting habeas corpus relief. After Goding failed to demonstrate grounds for continuing appellate jurisdiction in response to the court’s notice of possible dismissal, the court dismissed both appeals for want of jurisdiction and dismissed all pending motions as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A judgment vacated by an order granting a new trial is no longer appealable.
- The post-judgment temporary order at issue was interlocutory and not appealable.
- The court lacked jurisdiction to review the order granting habeas corpus relief.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that appellate jurisdiction depends on the continuing existence of an appealable order or judgment. Once the trial court granted a new trial and set aside its final judgment, that judgment could no longer support an appeal.
It also illustrates that related temporary and habeas corpus orders are not necessarily independently appealable. Parties must identify a statutory or other recognized basis for appellate jurisdiction when challenging such orders.